Anyone Still Making a "Good" Living Who ONLY Shoots Film?

I know this probably belongs in the business section, but over there I fear would mostly be digital shooters.

I am just curious; are there many left who are making a decent full time living out of just shooting film, or has all the

commercial work gone to the digital folks?

<p>It's been a long time since I made a full-time living out of photography but I would have imagined that, if anybody, people like this<br>

http://www.joecornishgallery.co.uk/about/equipment<br>

would have stuck with film. But no - even he went digital 5 years ago. So I would think the answer to the question "How many full-time pros shoot only digital?" is "Zero" - I am certain there are quite a few who shoot film and digital (e.g. wedding photogs shooting both formal and reportage-style pictures) and alternative-printing-process types I am sure shoot LF film to allow contact printing, but by and large digital is the industry standard and film is for enthusiasts and those (art photographers and others) deliberately seeking the occasional retro look. </p>

<p>It's hard to think of any full-time commercial photographers shooting film. Fine art guys like John Sexton, Alan Ross and Clyde Butcher shoot film, but I suspect the bulk of their income is from the sale of prints and leading workshops, not shooting photos for clients.</p>

<p>David, I think you mean"How many full time pros shoot only film" don't you? It's not quite zero - this guy <a href="http://www.christopherburkett.com/home.html">http://www.christopherburkett.com/home.html</a> still shoots film and prints in a conventional darkroom.</p>

<p>Don't know whether Christopher Burkett will be earning what he'd call a good living. His work hasn't moved on at all, he's got a fairly limited market, and he doesn't seem as prominent and as often exhibited as once he did.</p>

<p>Meanwhile I think Michael Kenna still works exclusively on film albeit that he's said that his commercial work is in decline because he doesn't shoot digital "yet". I'd be surprised if in that context several of the "school of Kenna" photographers hadn't stayed with film too, though I do note that Josef Hoeflehner sells some inkjet prints. I think Roman Lorenc still uses film exclusively. And whilst I can't tell you I'm ever certain about Michael Fatali, its possible that he's 100% film for shooting albeit that some of his prints are now Lightjets (typically he eschews the "lightjet" word and uses the term "Illumachromes" to describe his digital prints.</p>

<p>But all these guys are "art" rather than "commercial" orientated. I do suspect that its getting quite difficult to get commercial work on film (as Kenna has said) and you can imagine that the retouching/repro etc cycle completely revolves around digital.</p>

<p><em>David, I think you mean"How many full time pros shoot only film" don't you? It's not quite zero - this guy<a href="http://www.christopherburkett.com/home.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.christopherburkett.com/home.html</a> still shoots film and prints in a conventional darkroom.</em><br>

Well spotted, that man! You win this week's star prize of a roll of Verichrome Pan dated 1963 (a very good year). :-)</p>

<p>David H, I had completely forgotton about Michael Fatali! Mind you, I can't remember the last time I saw a new image from him - most of his stuff is years old.</p>

<p>David. There will be some that will say that forgetting Fatali is no bad thing. Agree that his work ( or his style) have not moved on.</p>

<p>Spike Bell and his Hasselblad's:<br>

http://spikebell.com/</p>

<p>By the way, if any of you have seen Christopher Burkett's prints in person, that should, or would change any Dvf debate. His stuff is mind blowing.</p>

OK I will add a few to the list that I'm surprised no one has mentioned:

 

Todd Hido http://toddhido.com

 

Hiroshi Watanabe http://www.hiroshiwatanabe.com

 

Ken Rosenthal http://www.kenrosenthal.com

 

All MF film shooters. My guess is they do no commercial work and earn most of their income through

fine art book sales.

<p>Don, I have seen Christopher Burkett's work in the flesh, so to speak, and I agree with you - thay are mind blowing. As of course, are the prices!</p>

<p>I've seen Burkett's prints several times in Oregon and yes, they are very nice. But they aren't a class ahead of everyone else's IMO- not a game changer for me, in that they don't get me thinking that the best of analogue prints are clearly better than the best digitally made prints. </p>

<p>According to the Feb issue of Popular Photography <a href="http://www.davidfokos.net/">David Fokos</a> shoots 8x10, but he scans and post processes the digital files. Don't know much about his work other than a quick perusal of his site, but he seems to be doing well enough. Got the cover shot anyway.</p>

<p>Jonathan Leder shot his "Jacques" magazine on film and still shoots fashion and editorial on 35mm and instant. NSFW material.</p>

"Only" film?<br>One single picture taken on film by Gursky fetched over 4 million dollars alone. A bit photoshopped as well, true.<br>Gursky himself wasn't the seller, but no worries about the amount of money he collected when he first sold it to the museum. Talk about making a good living... ;-)

This guy still does:

 

http://jonathancanlasphotography.com/wedding.html

<p>Not all photographers shooting digital make "good" living (whatever "good" is), but I would agree that those shooting film are more likely to make a good living from fine art photography than from other commercial photography where the digital system is much more convenient and efficient. Film photography (and darkroom black and white printing) generally requires more time and is thus compatible with reflective fine art approaches (although no more so than digital photography).</p>

<p>Unfortunately, to make a decent living in fine art is not at all easy, as the market is limited and not quite as bouyant as that for other commercial photography. As a relatively unknown and part time film and print photographer, responding to my own targeted subjects, I seldom sell more than 15 small (12 x 16 inch) prints per year (at only $200 per). Fine art photography, including black and white, requires the creative approach of an artist, as well as that of a technically proficient photographer and darkroom worker, if it is to result in a good living.</p>

<p>I'm a travel and landscape pro and use film only, however I don't make a "good living" at it. Nearly all of my customers no longer accept film images and have moved to digital submissions. I had no choice but to convert my best work to digital to stay in the game. I kind of like the look of Velvia 100f, Velvia 50 and Velvia 100. I feel it is more about my ability than the capture type I use but my customers don't agree with that sentiment. </p>

I don't know if he is really a full time pro, but Ian Cameron only shoots film:

Here is his website: http://www.transientlight.co.uk/ (See "The Photographer" for information about his equipment).

<p>Seeing the site of Ian Cameron that Heiko refers to is revealing of what is necessary to succeed in fine art photography, with film or with digital, or a mix of the two. Fine technique, a high level of understanding and application of colour and aesthetics, a concentration on obtaining top quality results, a professional website, publishing of books for greater personal visibility to clients, availability to others for workshops (several participants) and master classes (1 on 1), personal control of print quality, are just some of the elements required.</p>

<p>While he uses film, Mr. Cameron uses digital output to print (and presumably some post exposure balancing or modification of scanned images) and takes care to provide differing high quality papers depending upon the desired print quality and longevity of the viewer/buyer. He accompanies the viewer to his website in a natural and collaborative manner. I get the sense that he is full time and fully concentrated on his photography and it is probably that and a dedication to excellence that makes film + digital photography work for him.</p>

<p>I would be very surprised if he doesn't make a good living from this (concentrated and no doubt quite demanding of time and energy) activity. It is much more concentrated than what I do in a much more humble manner and on a very part time basis. I don't think the factor of whether he uses film + digital, or digital alone, makes much difference to the probable success of Mr.Cameron </p>

<p>I've heard Stephen Spielberg (director) prefers film and a few other Hollywood directors won't go digital also. Something to consider as well as the photographic aspect. </p>

<p>Last time I saw a documentary on Anton Corbjin he was still photographing bands like U2 with a film Hasselblad and some 35mm. He seems to make a pretty decent living from it.</p>

<p>Yeah my pension is paying me to shoot film more now than I ever in all my working years.... loving it too!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>And let's not forget Bill Cunningham:-)</p>